The Lesbian, Ugly Woman, And Jewish Origins Of Feminism

Two friendships shaped Wollstonecraft’s early life. The first was with Jane Arden in Beverley. The two frequently read books together and attended lectures presented by Arden’s father, a self-styled philosopher and scientist. Wollstonecraft revelled in the intellectual atmosphere of the Arden household and valued her friendship with Arden greatly, sometimes to the point of being emotionally possessive. Wollstonecraft wrote to her: “I have formed romantic notions of friendship … I am a little singular in my thoughts of love and friendship; I must have the first place or none.”[5] In some of Wollstonecraft’s letters to Arden, she reveals the volatile and depressive emotions that would haunt her throughout her life.[6]

The second and more important friendship was with Fanny (Frances) Blood, introduced to Wollstonecraft by the Clares, a couple in Hoxton who became parental figures to her; Wollstonecraft credited Blood with opening her mind.[7] Unhappy with her home life, Wollstonecraft struck out on her own in 1778 and accepted a job as a lady’s companion to Sarah Dawson, a widow living in Bath. However, Wollstonecraft had trouble getting along with the irascible woman (an experience she drew on when describing the drawbacks of such a position in Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, 1787). In 1780 she returned home, called back to care for her dying mother.[8] Rather than return to Dawson’s employ after the death of her mother, Wollstonecraft moved in with the Bloods. She realized during the two years she spent with the family that she had idealized Blood, who was more invested in traditional feminine values than was Wollstonecraft. But Wollstonecraft remained dedicated to her and her family throughout her life (she frequently gave pecuniary assistance to Blood’s brother, for example).[9]

Wollstonecraft had envisioned living in a female utopia with Blood; they made plans to rent rooms together and support each other emotionally and financially, but this dream collapsed under economic realities.

Wollstonecraft married, but in the 18th Century it would have been common for lesbians and gays to marry into heterosexual relationships.

The origin of modern feminism — the particularly nasty and virulent form of feminism that seeks to invert the sexual market to the perceived benefit of ugly women by removing all constraints on female sexuality and stripping moral agency from women, while maximally restricting and pathologizing male sexuality and burdening men with all moral responsibility — was disproportionately a Jewish and ugly woman movement. The book that begat modern feminism was The Feminine Mystique, by Jewish woman Betty Friedan.

What followed in Friedan’s wake was a freak parade of uglier and uglier women fronting the modern feminist agenda, and enacting their warped vision of the sexes into policy (e.g. Title IX).

Steve Sailer argues feminism is a WASP concept, and 20th Century Jewish immigration and dominance in media and Hollywood actually delayed the triumph of feminism (seen in the WASPs passing Female Suffrage and Prohibition), because Jewish men, like all Semitic men, evolved in a patriarchal and ethnocentric culture and didn’t see a need to extend respect to shiksas.

Maybe proto-feminism is WASPy, but that doesn’t explain the Jewishness of modern feminism, unless one considers Jewish feminism an ethnic-scale case of intratribal negative transference. Jewish female feminists were rebelling against their patriarchal religion (and seething with resentment against their Jewish men lusting after pretty Gentile women), but as is the wont of their tribe they organized their resistance around defiance of the Gentile soft-patriarchy culture of comfortably accepted sex roles and sex-based preferences, instead of targeting their attacks against their own Swinesteins. They transferred the cause of their bad feelings onto the contemptible goyium.

Jewish-led feminism was actually a reaction to their own anti-feminist ethnic culture. But since Jewish men, like all men, are more interested than are women in acquiring status and power to exchange for sex, the heights of industries like Hollywood filled with patriarchal Jewish men instead of feminist Jewish women.

That’s not the end of the story. Jewish men eventually caught on that hypocritically espousing the radical feminism of their tribeswomen was a great stick with which to beat goy society and poison relations between Gentile men and their women….and also to fool naive feminists into bed using the “Hugo Schwyzer” male feminist ruse. If you’re a casting couch sleazebag running a de facto brothel for skanky actress wannabes, posturing like a champion of women’s lib is an effective way to keep the heat off you and your whores satisfied with a pittance of hush money and empty promises.

When one sees feminism, and especially modern feminism, through the lens of homosexuality, ugliness, and Jewishness, the tenets and demands of the twisted ideology begin to make sense.

Lesbians resent men. They love feminism because they want to be men in every way that matters, and that means they have a stake in undermining sex-differentiated norms and even sexual dichotomy.

Lesbian Feminism is the agenda of making unfeminine women into second rate men rather than first rate women.

Ugly Woman Feminism is the agenda of pitting the bottom quarter of women against the top three quarters of women.

Jewish women resent their patriarchal culture and Gentile social norms. They love feminism because it subverts the traditions of their ethnic religion and gives them cover to corrupt the benignly sex-differentiated Christian culture which largely rejects the radical value system of Jewish women.

Jewish Feminism is the agenda of delegitimizing patriarchal Judaism/Semitism and of poisoning the benevolent sexism of Christian Gentile culture.

Put those three origins of modern (and proto-) feminism together — the lesbian, the ugly, and the Jewish — into one monstrous frankenshrew, and you get intersectional insanity like “white male privilege”, the UVA rape hoax scandal, and the constant invocation of the mythological discriminatory “wage gap“. Not to mention the gross anti-male injustice known as the family court industrial complex.

PS Even WASP feminism is tainted in origin. Prohibition was a failure, and Female Suffrage has inarguably shifted America politically leftward and into the waiting petri dish of Poz.

He hit on every actress who crossed his path. Odds favored him. I am waiting for a spreadsheet of every movie he was involved with and the female leads. Bonus points in it was an actress’ ‘big break’ into show business. Then go back and interview the actresses.

no kidding about jennifer lawrence. cute until she opens her mouth and starts talking. all downhill from there.

no better than average acting skills, horrible in interviews, flipping the bird, cussing like bar trash, inappropriate jokes and comments, no ladylike posture or mannerisms at all and half the time she just sounds like an idiot.

i’d be horrified if she were my girlfriend wife or daughter and she behaved like that in public.

Jennifer Lawrence was my first thought, too. She recently shacked up with a Hewush director and turned the crazy up to 11. I think being willing to promote Hillary or other left wing goals is part of these agreements.

Yet altruism is also what makes us collectively more powerful and wealthy, because it allows us to operate more efficiently and build social capital without an oppressive and expensive system of supervision.

However, if (((someone))) has the always-fishing-in-troubled-waters mentality of a middleman or supervisor, altruism is a bug of Whiteness, not a feature, because it has little need for the constant interference and supervision of (((such types)))..

I honestly think you can name the biggest porn dealers, ponzi schemers, counterfeiters, frauds, bribers, arms dealers, woman/child traffickers etc and in everyone one of these more ‘high IQ’ crime categories, the main example would be a jew.

People are literally shocked when I walk through the examples in each category and they notice the pattern for the first time. They are 1/2% of the population and DOMINATE non violent crime. Even the way jews get to white women is much different to the way blacks and arabs try to get off.

Well Harvey being a stark psychopath benefits from a lot from no anxiety or thinking the woman is above him. But he is fat and is not good looking. So if he didn’t use his business happy merchant genes to get powerful, he wouldn’t be getting laid and probably abducting women in vans after long periods of stalking.

Harvey had no game. ZERO. He was a fat, bumptious uggo who not only didn’t have game he had an appalling lack of any sense of propriety or refinement.

Had he ANY sense of savoir faire whatsoever, he’d have pre-qualified his women better and would be happily nailing quality tail, and doling out rewards to his favored cock holsters to this day, instead of losing everything, becoming suicidal and jetting off to Arizona to have his libido exorcised. But no, it was “Me want pooosy! Me want cookie! Me want hand job! Me want pizza!”

There are plenty of guys in Hollyweird – and really, that place is a cess pit of skypes, perves, pedos and queers – who are known swordsmen who never get into trouble. Jack Nicholson? Warren Beatty? And sure, right now Affleck and Khal Drago are catching some shit, but that will wear off – and really, it wouldn’t have happened at all if the Harve could have controlled himself a bit better. There were plenty of women who were perfectly willing to put on their cock jockey silks and ride Weingrabber’s half-hearted chubby to stardom. Instead he had to go after everything in a skirt, because he was drunk on his own power, and as soon as that power dried up, the long knives came out for him. His fate is richly deserved.

I’m not so sure. His path was roundabout (massage, exhibitionism, etc), but in the end, WeinSTEIN wanted what every guy wants, to stick his dick into a cute chick and get a nut. The scripts, the favors, the movies he could play into these chicks laps (and did, Streep thinks Harvey is a God) came after they played ball with him. That was his power, but in the end, he wanted to bang.

We need a cage fight between all the feminists, ending in one who can be tossed to the sharks with the chum. Then follow her into the water with all those feminist tomes. (Waterweight them with stones.)

the feminist hates male selection. Men who judge women for their looks are bad. Men who try to improve their own sexual value are bad.

but at the same time they’re at war with regular women who strive to improve their looks and respond to male sexual market value.

and maybe that’s a thing. Female nature is reflected in their blow-job magazines that teach them how to be attractive and to get men. Men are expected to act a certain way but the pua crowd has seen the revulsion that overt attempts to increase your male market value unnaturally causes, even among the normals.

Maybe that revulsion is due to the female egg investment model…blue sky laws for penises! They don’t want to be sold a time share in a swamp.

At the same time, normal men have their own selection processes and we can see through a layer of pancake make up and hopefully through other female camoflagues.

Favorite part of CH’s post was when he said it’s about leveraging the bottom quarter against the top 3/4.

Note these fractions: For men, beta revolutions are about the 3/4 bottom against the top 1/4. This is because the top 1/4 of guys absolutely clean the floor while the bottom 3/4 are not even really in the running.

But with women, 3/4 of them are hot enough to get the top 1/4 of guys, at least for a romp in the sack. Feminism is literally constituted of the women so physically deformed that practically no men are attracted to her. It is not a linear, but instead a logistic curve of SMV vs potential partners. 7+ have essentially all men interested, 3 and below have essentially zero

as much as the idea disgusts me, it’s not a bad idea. at first thought i would have said let them get into sham marriages so they aren’t acting out their degeneracy for all of us to see.

but letting them have fake marriages and procreate isn’t a good solution either. no doubt that their offspring carries some of their weak genes.

best solution is to make them feel accepted and free to live their lives openly gay but push tons of propaganda at them that will discourage them from procreating by in vitro, surrogate, or any other way that would involve their own dna

I could be ok with that, as long as they keep. it. to. them. selves. No more propaganda (thanks Putin!), no more talking about it, no more flaunting it. For example, when I’m king it’ll be illegal to punch a fag if he’s dressed normally. If he’s wearing heels, he’s fair game. If he’s wearing ass chaps and lipstick, it’s our civic duty to scissorkick the shit out of him.

IOW, they gotta go back in the closet, but they don’t have to lock the door.

Just give them their own little territory filled with foam rooms and mock ups of public toilets and the promise of bug medicine.

Make it comfie and send down to Muslims to join them. Promise them lots of white virgins and bacha bazi, then when they arrive, slam the gates after them.

All Muzies are half fags to start with so they will quickly settle into concubinage with all the full fags, all infecting each other Then we spread a rumor that the Christian gays are tricking the Muslims by using condoms and lubricants that use pig fat.

The aids-infected Muslims will go on a Siege of Lucknow Black Hole of Calcutta (Oh, quel cul t’as!) rampage, slaughtering the fags by throwing them off the roofs of high buildings,

Hearing of this outrage, Trump tweets the Air Force to swoop in and obliterate the entire territory with napalm until not one fag remains lying on top of another.

Problem solved. And call my agent! Tell him I’m in the middle of writing up a treatment that is guaranteed 100% box office. Where do I get this stuff?

I could never understand the disgust at putting fags into concentration camps.
Surely that’s manna heaven for them?
Instead of little Christopher roaming the dingy streets trying to figure out if big Ernst was on their team, Uncle Adolf created one big gay club for you all to sleep together and shower together. And if you were in doubt, big Ernst is wearing a pink triangle.
You’re welcome

It’s interesting to see the herd animals (female normals) following their feminist masters. They don’t really want to, because it blows their chances with alpha men whom they know to be dyed-in-the-wool sexists, but at the same time they don’t want to disturb their “sisters.”

It’s gross to see cuter women preening over their uglier sisters (feminists) saying, “Your HAIR is so BEAUTIFUL,” or “I wish I had your EYYYES.” It functions as a tribute to power. Average girls don’t think much, and having feminists around saves them SO MUCH TROUBLE.

Heartiste’s comments about lesbian feminism reminds me of how FEW lesbians there are that are at all good-looking.

I knew one girl who was bi, and liked male-oriented pornography, but she far preferred cheating on her husband with me to doing it with other girls. As a D-cup shapely one, she would have made an impressive dyke — but she was cheerful and smiling despite her fibromyalgia.

She was very sweet and feminine. I always like girls like her. When I was in the hospital, Miss D-Cup brought me home-made subs and was willing to lend me money. Like many feminine women, I think she had low self-esteem, probably bludgeoned into her because many other women were jealous of her huge knockers and sweet attitude and tried to “bring her down to their level.”

In my twenties a few buddies and me were looking for a bar, and stumbled into a lesbian bar. All my adolescent fantasies shattered in an instant. To a man, these women were fat, short haired fugs. Imagine Hillary Clinton in a flannel shirt and construction boots, and every lesbian I’ve seen since has been that. I’ve never seen a hot lesbian in person.

a lot of those hot so-called lesbians are only telling people and acting like that because they know it gets men excited to think of them with other girls and seeing them flirting with each other. same goes for girls who say they are bi.

if these hot girls are actually behaving like lesbians, not just acting, it’s most likely only because they had bad experiences with men and they decided to try women for awhile to avoid getting hurt.

any of one of those girls would go right back to being straight if the right man came along.

The strip club ones and the porn “stars”are usually “lesbo by life experience”. In other words, the really bitter, dangerous ones who have been much abused and thus have come to hate and fear men. It’s the same reason a lot of them are addicts of one sort or another.

Nah. Ex strip club employee here. A lot of strippers and porn stars identify as lesbians, way more than the civilian population. These girls suffered damage that left them bitter and burnt out on men and led them into exploiting their sexuality for cash in the first place. A good number of them have abusive bull dyke “girlfriends” who satisfy their craving for masculinity while not reminding them too much of their pervy uncles.

Boy do I feel dumb. Whenever I have researched the originators and promoters of some of the most subversive and destructive social movements in history, I invariably found Jews. All this time I should have been realized that the overwhelming majority were men.

At a bare minimum, even if the Jews had nothing to do with the formulation of feminism, they avidly gave it (and continue it give it) the support of their thunderous megaphone and seemingly endless lobbying money.

The (((tribe))) knows a bad thing when they see it, and back it to the hilt.

I was thinking along those lines. If proto-feminism is WASPy, I bet if it was let alone it would either have died out, or developed into something benign. Add Jews to the mix and it becomes malignant. How many other issues fit that description? A venial Gentile sin that explodes into a Jewish-led mortal sin. Pornography? Usury? Rebellion against Tradition?

If women don’t have the moral ability to consent while drinking, they belong in an elementary school, not on a university. Come to think of it, that’s exactly where they belong regardless, until they are ready for children of their own.

WASPs have our set of problems (which can be managed). Anytime any other ethnic group or tribe is introduced into the equation, they will invariably multiply any of our problems into an uncontrollable disaster.

Right on the money CH. if memory serves, notorious RBG was quoted recollecting how resentful she was in her youth of the customary Jewish mekhitsa- division between males and females during prayer time.

Exile Jewry is horrible. They are, by and large, a disaster, the epitome of self-unawareness, narcissism, and arrogance.

And of course, given the inescapable reality that us Jewish girls cannot typically compete in beauty with the goyas – unless we are halvies like Scarlett Johansonn maybe – I am surprised things aren’t even worse than they are.

They’re ok I guess. Bar Rafaeli or Gal Gadot look better. I think that’s because American Jewish women seem to be very inbred, they have this Jewish caricature look to them. In Israel there is a lot of inter- Jewish mixing so that improves things a bit.

“Steve Sailer argues feminism is a WASP concept, and 20th Century Jewish immigration and dominance in media and Hollywood actually delayed the triumph of feminism”

Nope.

Lasha Darkmoon, a white nationalist woman, has a great article on it – and shows that a large number of first wave feminists were jewish women.

Contrary to the common perception, many of the suffragettes in first wave feminism were wealthy Jewesses. Rich Jews such as Israel Zangwill and Edward Benays were generous patrons who helped to finance the suffragette movement.

Jewish women were at the forefront of women’s action, holding leading, influential positions of presidency, vice presidency, treasury and began forming and heading leading suffrage associations internationally. They became the first ‘female’ appointed judges, magistrates and female ‘immigrants’ in countries which required citizen sponsors, gaining legal residence without those sponsorships

Yeah, Sailer is off here. WASPs are highly suggestible and fall for progessive tricks every single time, but the ideas rarely if ever originate with them.

WASPs evolved to follow a group moral code. Doesn’t matter if its puritanism or blank slate equality, doesn’t matter if its 1600 or 2017. The WASP absolutely 100% needs to know he is better because he follows a certain code.

The WASP needs food, water, and status whoring through moral signaling to survive. If you control the reigning moral code, then you control the WASP.

Atheists and neopagans make some good points regarding the down sides to christianity, but what it comes down to is that the vast majority of people NEED a group moral code. If you don’t provide one, they will find it elsewhere. If we’re seeking to build an alternative to the Poz, Christianity seems to be the only thing that really has a shot, given its cultural penetrance. It just needs to be retaken over at leadership levels, and it has to appeal to higher IQ people again.

There is a catch with using Christianity.
1450 Gutenburg’s Printing Press
1517 Martin Luther’s 95 Theses

Or to be explicit, as soon as you allow people to read the Bible, they will start splintering. Which was inevitably followed by killing each other- justification by faith is one of the most toxic ideas because it means individual beliefs are incredibly important to the point where it eclipses everything else (this is why the Catholic Church empathized works and theology restricted to the few).

This is followed by religious tolerance at which point using religion as a bulwark for morality begins its disintegration (because if religion is the way you introduce morality and people can pick their religion…)

As for appealing to high IQ people, that looks unlikely. Back in the old days Christianity was built on Platonism. Everything that exists is the reflection of an ideal form with God being the ideal form of goodness, justice and the other virtues. The theory had useful parts; the reason why things grow up, why there are patterns in nature and why we can classify things is because they are all reflections of x ideal forms. So by studying the ideal forms and the language of ideal forms (logic) we can have insight into reality. It also lets high IQ people argue about the fundamental nature of the God as a coherent question instead of just apologetics to cheerlead for their side.

The issue is this was totally bulldozed by Newton. The conclusion people got from that was divine watchmaker, but it turns out Deism is an utterly empty religious position.

Sailor is dead right. Feminism in its present form was incubated in the post-war years by the WASP elite to provide for their daughters when their sons, like Gore Vidal, started swarming into the City for the Pillar.

But I have one comment: “What followed in Friedan’s wake was a freak parade of uglier and uglier women…” I don’t throw around the word ugly, but if you meant “uglier than Friedan” by that sentence, that might not have been possible. The woman’s face could stop a clock.

[CH: andrea dworkin, hard as it is to believe, surpasses friedan in ugliness.]

Check out Sex Trouble by Robert McCain. He summarizes many radical feminists. One of their stated goals, and the purpose of women’s studies, is to turn women into lesbians. He quotes many wackos that said this.

Women have no part in traditional Judaism’s leadership. It is deeply sexist, moreso than Christianity but not as extreme as Islam. So, feminism is inherently anti-trad Jew. Obviously there is a paradox between Judaism’s anti-feminism and the role of Jews in pushing feminism. The Old Testament is full of femme fatales who use sex as a weapon. Ruth, an idealized woman, is the ancestor of Jesus in the New Testament, with Mary, the other idealized woman.

18thC Jacob Frank’s inversion of Jewish tradition (existentially he was a Satanist with pedo/orgies, etc) manifested in radical feminism. Frank had armed female bodyguards, featured his wife in his ritualized orgies, likely slept with his daughter (so did an Austrian emperor according to legend). Women played an active part in Frankist/Sabbatean Judaism’s leadership and today’s Reform Judaism, its quasi-descendant.

If you go down the rabbit hole of Jewish heretical theology, the Left starts to make sense. It is an ideology designed to make the world so terrible that the messiah is forced to come. Putting women in power is an invitation to chaos and destruction. Marx, for example, hated capitalism not due to its evil, but its efficiency. He acknowledge that no replacement for the system was possible. The interest in opposing capitalism is to create chaos and destruction.

Accordingly, many neo-Frankists pushed Feminism (Marcuse, Freud, Marx, etc) as a vector to take out Western Civ and trad Judaism. The terrifying part is that Christianity isn’t prepared for a Jewish-based heretical assault. Feminism plays to Christianity’s latent feminism and Marxism’s its heavy emphasis on charity/anti-wealth. So, these ideas, which Orthodox Jews instinctively understand as dangerous, will appear benign to unknowing Christians/Whites.

Perhaps openly, but history and even our current environment are replete with puppets with penises who have been ruthlessly used by a woman or women in their life. Theodora, wife of Justinian, comes leaping to mind. Paul Ryan is probably a cipher for his Democrat shrew of a wife.

“Ugly women resent pretty women. They love feminism because they want to reduce the competitive advantages pretty women enjoy by enforcing equality and uniformity among women. Ugly women also love feminism because they understand on a deep level that they are too ugly to find a provider husband and must pursue careerism to collect the resources themselves.”

“After surveying 30 undergraduates, they discovered that 28 would rather talk about emotional issues with their male friends rather than girlfriends. The majority also said it was easier to resolve conflicts with men, and admitted they kept secrets from partners which they shared with male friends.”

Count me among the 28. Girls don’t keep secrets and will ratchet your SMV down in a wink if you don’t measure your emotional outpourings.

yeah, they are demonizing normal guy time because everyone now believes couples should spend all their free time together and any outside relationships are bad.

but really it’s all about isolation and control. just like any abuser, many women will try to isolate their men so they can keep in the dark about what a bad catch she really is.

he’s less likely to compare notes with other men and find out he’s got a bad deal compared to them, he won’t be out meeting other women and realizing he could do better, etc

men and women aren’t meant to go long periods of time without doing things with friends/family of the same sex.

hell, men and woman never spent much time together until recent years. men would be out hunting, working, etc. with other men, sometimes travelling, etc. the women would be home with kids and other women. they’d see each other at most a couple hours at night and not even every day.

now couples try to spend way too much time together. not healhty at all

This a favorite of the destructive feminists: declare anything male homosociality to be “latent homosexuality”, because all men ever think about is sex, right, so what are they doing when there’s no pussy about?

Wait a minute . . .

One man named ‘Aaron’ told researchers: “We hug when we meet, and we sleep in the same bed when we have sleepovers. Everyone knows it, and nobody is bothered by it because they do it as well.”

Okay, they may be right about the subjects of this study. What fucking adult has “sleepovers”?

I am sorry but your theories have no ground in reality. Feminists Jews were not religious to start with and religious Jewish women are the least feminists of them all. The second wave of the feminist movement where Jews were prominent started long after most Jews abandoned their religion. The orthodox ones who still practice their religion are still living their life in the traditional way and feminism is not relevant to them, not in practice and not in theory.

The ugly woman theory makes more sense and it might be that feeling less pretty than their gentile countrywomen was a factor. However, it doesn’t explain why feminism took hold in Israel where most women are Jewish anyway and in general are better looking than the Ashkenazi stock in the US due to better genes of alpha zionist pioneers and the women they attracted, mixing with non Ashkenazi Jews, and a lot of slavic blood from the post soviet collapse immigration.

What that got to do with anything? I didn’t say they were not real Jews, just said that they were not religious and therefore any connection to the perceived conservatism or patriarchy of the Jewish religion is not relevant. This is a fact, and if you want to argue about it, give a name of one Jewish feminist who was also religious, you will not find because you know too well feminists are secular liberals.

The Jewish religion has laws, not myths. Orthodox Jews follow the rules, the only people who are attracted to all those “myths” are seculars who don’t want to deal with the hard part of being Jewish and look at it from a cultural point of view, or Madonna with her Kabbalah bullshit.

I didn’t attempt to rationalize, quiet the opposite, i try to debunk CH rationalization which attributed Jewish feminism to the Jewish conservative religion an its followers. Holocaust or not is not relevant, JIDF is not relevant. There is no JIDF on the internet.

Yes this is right. But I think the early feminists Sailer talks about were sincere in that first wave feminism. Truth be told I agree with most of it – they should be allowed vote if they pay taxes, they should be allowed equal court justice, etc.

I think, just like socialism in fact, what happened was the jews saw an opportunity to meld it to their tribal agenda. So you got the 2nd wave to make women whores and the 3rd is….you can see feminism has a specific racial aspect to it.

Notice the way (((‘feminists’))) don’t criticise muslim men or black men.

Like libertarians, I don’t mind honest feminists. I disagree with their principles and concepts. But if they apply it honestly I tend to see innocence, rather than perversion. I’m delighted at whats happening to Weinstein for example.

I think its ok to have a different political belief system. I don’t think everyone should be as tribal or as low empathy as myself in fact. But the jews are a special case, because as Niethsche says they just don’t believe anything they say. Its psychopathic behaviour that can’t be honestly debated with.

Libertarians do not have “principles”. They have careful logic, but the logic is derived from a collection of abstract truisms.

And these truisms have no basis in any observations of true “human action” or they would have to acknowledge that humans are violent, tribal, and hierarchical. Libertarianism *very carefully* (and thus in my opinion knowingly and dishonestly) avoids making any such observations.

So I cannot take libertarians seriously – in fact, I am very suspicious of them – as long as they decline to root their arguments in explicit claims about human psychology, sociology and anthropology.

That is, I want them to talk FIRST about sex and race, and only THEN about economics and social organization.

And they are also a pack of Jews deeply in bed with Coudenhove-Kalergi.

Wollstonecraft got pump-and-dumped by an American bro named Gilbert Imlay during French Revolution days. Had her widdle heart broken. E. Michael Jones writes about it extensively in Libido Dominandi and Monsters from the Id. She could have been bi I suppose but she wasn’t a dyke.

The White tendency towards feminism probably comes from our pre-Aryan European roots where we likely lived in matriarchal societies and spent way too much time carving things like this:

Hundreds of these fucking things have been found across Europe. For a fictional, yet believable, imagining of what life would have been like in such a village– with feared and venerated old crones holding sway over everyone, I recommend Hermann Hesse’s “The Rainmaker” which is included as part of his Glass Bead Game. The Aryans, hypermasculine and patriarchal, crushed and conquered these original Europeans.

But, ever since then, the Nordic tendency towards feminism and equality (rule by women) has been slowly reasserting itself. It’s most advanced in most Nordic Scandinavia. Chivalry, Troubadours… even in the 19th century people like the Japanese were flabbergasted at how deferential the world-conquering White men were towards their women.

The jews took this trend and fouled it up and twisted it like only they could of course.

There is no clear evidence that matriarchies existed in the past and many scholars do not accept this.

“Mother Goddes”

There is difference of opinion between the academic and the popular conception of the term. The popular view is mainly driven by the Goddess movement and reads that primitive societies initially were matriarchal, worshipping a sovereign, nurturing, motherly earth goddess. This was based upon the nineteenth-century ideas of unilineal evolution of Johann Jakob Bachofen. According to the academic view, however, both Bachofen and the modern Goddess theories are a projection of contemporary world views on ancient myths, rather than attempting to understand the mentalité of that time. Often this is accompanied by a desire for a lost civilization from a bygone era that would have been just, peaceful and wise. However, it is highly unlikely that such a civilization ever existed.

For a long time, feminist authors advocated that these peaceful, matriarchal agrarian societies were exterminated or subjugated by nomadic, patriarchal warrior tribes. An important contribution to this was that of archaeologist Marija Gimbutas. Her work in this field is now however largely rejected.[5] Also with feminist archaeologists this vision is nowadays considered highly controversial.

Since the sixties of the twentieth century, especially in popular culture, the alleged worship of the mother goddess and the social position that women in prehistoric societies supposedly assumed, were linked. This made the debate a political one. According to the goddess movement, the current male-dominated society should return to the egalitarian matriarchy of earlier times. That this form of society ever existed was supposedly supported by many figurines that were found.
In academic circles, this prehistoric matriarchy is considered unlikely. Firstly, worshiping a mother goddess does not necessarily mean that women ruled society. In addition, the figurines can also portray ordinary women or goddesses, and it is unclear whether there really ever was a mother goddess.

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known anthropological societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have.

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early, mainly prehistoric, stage of human development gained popularity. Possibilities of so-called primitive societies were cited and the hypothesis survived into the 20th century, including in the context of second-wave feminism. This hypothesis was criticized by some authors such as Cynthia Eller in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and remains as a largely unsolved question to this day.

Nordic societies was far more patriarchal and male dominated than current society or even the US in the 50s. They had strict gender roles and viking women were not allowed to participate in battles, not allowed to bear weapons, to use male clothes (such as pants) or to have short hair. A woman was expected to be chaste before marriage.

They treated women a bit better than the rest of Europe, but a modern woman would still be horrified if she had to live in that society. They had arranged/forced marriages for women where the family chose the husband and often married 12-15 year old girls. Women could not participate in politics, could not be judges or hold any public office, could not trade, and could not inherit most of the property, as in viking society the oldest son inherited the family farm and the land. Vikings had foreign female slaves and viking women were largely confined to the home.

If a woman committed adultery, divorce was the least of the penalties she might have to face, being also at risk for punishments ranging from fines to being slain if caught in the act by her husband in some parts of Scandinavia. On the other hand, a man committed adultery only if he slept with another man’s wife, and his extramarital activities were never grounds for his own wife to divorce him.

The areas where they were ahead of Europe were in that women could divorce under certain circumstances, women were protected from street harassment, and women could inherit the family property if they had no remaining living male relatives.

The operative phrase was ‘pre-Aryan.’ I’m talking about– speculating about– the White people who were in Europe before the Aryans arrived from the Pontic-Caspian Steppes (whether it was a giant coordinated blitzkrieg or a gradual migration hardly matters I think) and brought their culture with them which was both imposed on and assimilated those already living there. Vikings, Celts, Romans, Greeks were intensely patriarchal I agree.

It’s possible to be White without being Aryan. For instance, Finns, Hungarians, Estonians, and Basques speak non-Indo European languages yet they’re still White. Finns and Estonians seem to be even Whiter than most “Aryans.” (Then you’ve got those who say Finns aren’t “White” because they’ve got trace amounts of Asian Lapp blood, but I digress.) Perhaps, thousands of years ago, our language and mythology were more like Finnish and the Kalevala.

You’re also right there’s no hard evidence about pre-historic matriarchy since these people didn’t practice writing and they got culturally over-written by the Indo-Europeans. I’m deducing/inferring based on clues from the past– Demeter, the intense Mariolatry of the middle ages, women in seer roles (Pythoness, Sibyls, the shamanic Voelva among the Norse, Quakers– based most strongly in the old Danelaw– letting inspired women preach) as well looking at how we live in the present. How do we Whites carry on now that there’s no pressure (or so it’s perceived) and we’re letting it all hang out so to speak? Equality tipping into matriarchy. But that could just be decadence.

Do you know why patriarchy exists among humans? It is because men can form large groups and women can not. Apparently men cooperate better and work better as a team in large groups, while women cooperate well only when they know each other. In other words, small groups, small tribes, etc. are more matriarchal, but larger groups and states, empires, etc. are more patriarchal.

There’s Aryan culture/language and Aryan y-chromosome haplogroups. So much to learn.

But hey:

‘Historically, Basque society can be described as being somewhat at odds with Roman and later European societal norms.
Strabo’s account of the north of Spain in his Geographica (written between approximately 20 BC and 20 AD) makes a mention of “a sort of woman-rule—not at all a mark of civilization” (Hadington 1992), a first mention of the—for the period—unusual position of women. “Women could inherit and control property as well as officiate in churches. Combined with the issue of lingering pagan beliefs, this enraged the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, perhaps leading to one of the largest witch hunts in the Basque town of Logroño in 1610”.[28]
This preference for female dominance existed well into the 20th century:
…matrilineal inheritance laws, and agricultural work performed by women continued in Basque country until the early twentieth century. For more than a century, scholars have widely discussed the high status of Basque women in law codes, as well as their positions as judges, inheritors, and arbitrators through ante-Roman, medieval, and modern times. The system of laws governing succession in the French Basque region reflected total equality between the sexes. Up until the eve of the French Revolution, the Basque woman was truly ‘the mistress of the house’, hereditary guardian, and head of the lineage.’

I forgot the Etruscans. Non-Aryans at least by language and culture with a reputation for letting women run wild.

My brother and I both realized how much we shared an absolute hatred of the bossy Anglobitch. Nothing more angering that some woman inserted into a position of power that virtually all other cultures are male hierarchies. The Jews lived in the Islamic world and the Latin Mediterranean for over a thousand years and never once did they try to push feminism on their host population. Only when they took root in these Anglo Nordic cultures did they see this vulnerability to tailor their con. You could say perhaps the latent feminist tendencies in the west of letting the Anglobitch have free reign to be boss allowed the other half of the Jewish population, the Jewess, to join in the fray. You could even say the reason the left seems particularly insane these days as opposed to the era of FDR is the large involvement of females and their particular illogic.

I think women with careers look down on stay at home moms because SAHM act like its such hard work. If being a wife and mother is the default role for women, why do so many act like it’s on par with studying neuroscience. It isn’t. It’s life on easy mode. Another pet peeve, if having children is so important why are they the best thing a woman can do and not the best thing a man can do as well? Not all women are beautiful enough for men, why begrudge them an honest way of living so they aren’t dependent on their parents? Other women find domestic work tedious and require more stimulating tasks for them to fill fulfilled.

Someone trying to understand both sides of the equation. I find it distasteful that many feminist site slam men or claim marriage is slavery. That said, I also want to understand why other sites seem so keen to force women into 2 roles. I’m just trying to understand differing perspectives and hopefully glean some truth. 🙂

“I think women with careers look down on stay at home moms because SAHM act like its such hard work. If being a wife and mother is the default role for women, why do so many act like it’s on par with studying neuroscience.”

Actually for women, this is more important than studying neuroscience. Because a group of stay at home moms with children defeat and replace a group of career women without children. You can clearly see that in Europe, where the career women are dying off and are being replaced by muslims.

In women, it does not matter if the woman is smart, or if the woman has status in society, or if the woman is strong, or if the woman is famous. None of this matters at all. Most women manage to reproduce regardless of their qualities. Women look at men and think that what makes men successful is what will make women successful. This is the biggest mistake possible, because women are not men. What works for women is not what works for men.

In women, there is negative correlation between earnings, career and children. Thus the most career successful women and the smartest women are ironically the most genetically unsuccessful women. Thus they are not really successful. In men, on the other side, there is positive correlation between earnings and number of children, amd smart men have a good number of children as well.

There are alpha males but there are no alpha females. There are men with great qualities but there are no women with great qualities – this is because men are more diverse and variable than women, while women are more average and more similar to each other. Of course that is a bit of a generalization, but still women with great qualities are far, far rarer than men with great qualities. For example there is only 1 woman among the top 100 chess players and women won only 2 percent of the Nobel Prizes for Science.

Career women might look down on SAHM but they are not genetically successful and nature does not like them and makes sure that they go away, and that their genes are lost forever in favor of SAHM women genes. In other words, you do not know what a quality woman means. A quality woman is not the same as a quality man. According to nature, what makes a woman successful is not what makes a man successful. We are sexually dimorphic specie. What works for women is not what works for men. This is why men and women are different. A quality man means a man who is successful in life and has status in society (men exist in hierarchies and women pick the men on the top of those hierarchies, while women are largely equal to each other), while a quality woman means a woman that is a good mother and has lots of quality children. In men, career success is positively correlated with number of children. In women, it is negatively correlated. Thus it is career men and stay at home mothers who are the most genetically successful people, and will have future generations to look and behave like them.

Of couse, you could try to heavily push women in careers too, but it does not work for long; eventually the culture with the career obsessed women gets replaced by more conservative culture where women have more children.

“Another pet peeve, if having children is so important why are they the best thing a woman can do and not the best thing a man can do as well?”

This is again a typical mistake, to think that men and women are the same, and therefore what works for men should be exactly what works for women, and vice versa. I see many people making that mistake. Men and women are different, which means that what increases the reproductive fitness for one gender will not always work and could even decrease the reproductive fitness of the other gender. For example being stong helps men survive harsh environments, so this makes them more reproductively successful, but it does not make women more reproductively successful, as it could encourage women to take more risks, become more aggressive, and pick more battles, which will be dangerous for pregnant women or for the safety of children of mothers. Men are more expendable than women, and a higher casualty rate would have more negative impact on women than on men.

Having children is more important for women than for men because humans are a relatively polygamous specie. More women than men have children. Only a few men could impregnate lots of women. Historically, 80 percent of women reproduced, but only 40 percent of men reproduced. Thus, for men, on average, reproduction is not that important, as many men do not reproduce.

In other words, if tomorrow 50 percent of men decide not to have children nothing bad will happen – society will continue to function as before and the remaining men will impregnate the women. But if 50 percent of women decide not to reproduce, then society will immediately take a massive hit on the birth rate, which will hit its economy, well being, and make it less competitive against other societies, with the possible risk of replacement by other more competitive groups. This is why people instinctively feel that a woman not having children is a waste, but do not feel that for men or the feeling is weaker.

“Not all women are beautiful enough for men”

In reality, thats not very true. Women are hypergamous, but men are not. This is why most women reproduce, but a lower number of men reproduce. Most women are ok for men.

“why begrudge them an honest way of living so they aren’t dependent on their parents”

This becomes a problem because this could also lead to negative birth rate and could lead to the dissapearance of the group practicing this. Not to mention that in many areas it makes no sense to use women, for example the average female doctor is 25 percent less productive than the average male doctor, less likely to invent something new, and more likely to quit her job, therefore women in the workforce in many cases are a drag on the economy as they are significantly less productive than men. Many of the current financial problems of the medical sector for example are caused by the usage of female doctors, who are way less productive than men.

“Other women find domestic work tedious and require more stimulating tasks for them to fill fulfilled.”

Those same women are also not genetically successful women and are being replaced by other types of women, from more pro-family oriented cultures, so quite possibly they are not normal women or are some kind of unsuccessful mutation.

Thanks for the well thought out response! Any neuroscientist worth their salt knows men and women are different. There is a reason why the NIH demanded male and female animal models of disease!! I agree with many of your statements and acknowledge that the women who choose career over family are in the minority or at the far end of the bell curve. I just struggle with the thought of forcing these women to live a life that does not suit them. I also struggle with the thought of forcing men to deny their masculinity or be ashamed of it. I think for many women, traditional is best and encouraging women to choose that life is a great thing. I find it appalling to see women shamed for wanting the homemaker life but I also dislike shaming women for choosing a different path. Even if these women are abnormal, they still deserve happiness and fulfillment. Maybe if they have higher T, it leads to masculinization of the brain that becomes wired to prefer some masculine pursuits. I guess my meandering point is, I think the original goal of feminism was to give these outliers a voice but it has mutated into a beast that decries femininity because they “don’t get it”.

I don’t think most women throughout history were traditionally stay at home moms like Don Draper’s wife in the early season of Mad Men. That was the most privileged middle class women during a particularly wealthy era. What the didn’t do is aspire to be firemen and astronauts. They worked but they didn’t have “careers” Nor did the school system track them the same as boys for male oriented careers as they ridiculously do now.

Very simple. In the Gospel of John, when it says in the beginning was the Word, the Greek word in the original text is LOGOS. It means truth, word, hierarchy, order, beauty, etc. That being said “they” killed Logos incarnate or Logos in the flesh. If they killed Logos, that means they are revolutionaries and are rebellious to the Truth, to order, to the word, etc. Everything that is good and healthy. So it’s in their natures to destroy. They said ” Let HIS blood be on us and our children”.

“Fanny (Frances) Blood, introduced to Wollstonecraft by the Clares, a couple in Hoxton “
“Fanny Blood”? Oh. My. Lord … was she Scottish, by any chance? (means girlie-front-bottom, here). No wonder she browsed the old roast beef.

The article omits a key fact about the difference between traditional Jewish and Christian marriage. In Christianity, Marriage is a sacrament; it is a symbol of the mystical union between God and his Church. For that reason, women have the duty of Obedience, and men have the duty of dying for their wives as Jesus did for the Church (assembly of believers). In contrast, there is no notion in traditional Judaism of marriage being a sacramental state – it is simply a contract. In return for enabling Jewish men to fulfill the Biblical precept of ‘be fruitful and multiply’, women are guaranteed sex and babies.

The notion that women owe any kind of obedience to their husbands is simply not present. Add to this the fact that Jewish men were necessarily Beta males , as there was no other way for them to operate surrounded by a hostile society. The practical import is to have made European Jewish marriage a female-head houshold, even into the 20th century until WW2.

After WW2, the ensuing prosperity of the Jewish community – average income about 70% higher than the US average by the end of the 1950s – and you get the Jewsih Princess. Following the example of her mother, she assumes as an entitlement prerequisites of her rank. Coming into the university system, they ran into an ideology that reflected their privileged position within the Jewish family. Jews achieved professional success more than in proposition to their numbers – about a third of the professional class (higher for lawyers, lower for engi9neers). But a quick review of leading feminists reveals that two thrids of them are of Jewish descent. This is double the representation of Jews in the professions generally; why?

My conjecture is that Feminism validated the traditional Jewish female power advantage in their relationship with men. Starting in the 1960s, Feminism became a vehicle through which ALL women could enjoy the JAP (Jewish American Princess) lifestyle. By extending JAP behavior to all women, Jewish women closed an exist door for Jewish men, who were marrying non-Jews at increasingly higher rates. There was no place to run to – all were were now JAPs. Unlike Jewish success in the professions, which can be ascribed to the IQ advantage, Jewish female overepresentation in Feminism is a cultural traint, a meme that now flourishes among females generally.